#AFL Round 7, Swans vs North, 7:25pm at the SCG #AFLSwansNorth @sydneyswans

[Markwebbos]

"There was not enough definitive evidence to overrule and change the decision in time before the restart of play, so the original decision stood."

That's a textbook example of weasel wording. Doesn't say there was no evidence is was touched, only not "in time before the restart".

[Scottee]

Flat out lie!

It was very strange.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Blood Fever]

That response from the AFL is typical - find a way to say it was actually OK, whether it addressed the issue or not. The real problem is that umpires have, and will now do so even more given the edict to try and save time on reviews, justified not using the goal review process on the basis that a decent review occurs anyway after each goal. But that just isn't the case.

The Ben Brown frees were a disgrace really - just poor umpires getting absolutely sucked in. Only certain players get away with those, and Brown has elevated himself to that level where he has a reputation for being a good mark on the lead and/or overhead, so when he stages in those instances, the umpires take a view that 'he must have been infringed to have gone under the footy like that' - totally ignoring what actual contact was made, if any.

Sheer arrogance again from AFL. Would win more kudos for admitting mistake was made. Treats people like idiots.

[dejavoodoo44]

At times, he looked like a "wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man".

I was watching the game on TV and on two of his free kicks I kept rewinding and playing over and again multiple times to work out what Rampe had done wrong. I went through each criteria for an infringement and could not detect one. Perhaps if you run around like a flailing tube man people will just assume you have been retarded in some way.

Though I haven't managed to bring myself to watch the replay, the decision that mystified me more than the flailing in the air ones, was the one where Rampe was apparently penalized for shepherding Brown out the marking contest. If I remember rightly, Rampe and Brown were moving towards the ball, but Rampe pulls up, because he sees that Grundy is in a much better position to take the mark. Which Grundy does, while there is a brush of the shoulders between Rampe and Brown.
This was ruled to be shepherding, apparently because Rampe should have went for the ball. Which is ludicrous, because if he flew, there would have been about a 98% chance that he would've clattered into Grundy and spoilt his marking attempt, while possibly injuring himself and his team mate.
I see no reason why Rampe should have been obliged to do that. Nor do I think that he should be under an obligation to leap out of Brown's way, once he had made the sensible decision not to fly.

[dejavoodoo44]

That's a textbook example of weasel wording. Doesn't say there was no evidence is was touched, only not "in time before the restart".

Yes, I when I read that, I thought that it might be handy, if some journalist was to quiz whoever made that statement, as to what actually qualifies as "definitive evidence". That is, why is one replay that showed the fingers bending back "definitive evidence", while another replay that showed the fingers bending back, is not considered to be "definitive evidence"? I'd be interested to hear an official explaining the difference between the two.

[Markwebbos]

Yes, I when I read that, I thought that it might be handy, if some journalist was to quiz whoever made that statement, as to what actually qualifies as "definitive evidence". That is, why is one replay that showed the fingers bending back "definitive evidence", while another replay that showed the fingers bending back, is not considered to be "definitive evidence"? I'd be interested to hear an official explaining the difference between the two.

You are missing the point. The AFL doesn't say there was not definitive evidence to overrule the decision. It says "There was not enough definitive evidence to overrule and change the decision in time before the restart of play..." So there may have been plenty of evidence but the evidence wasn't "in time"

Weasel wording par excellence

[dejavoodoo44]

You are missing the point. The AFL doesn't say there was not definitive evidence to overrule the decision. It says "There was not enough definitive evidence to overrule and change the decision in time before the restart of play..." So there may have been plenty of evidence but the evidence wasn't "in time"

Weasel wording par excellence

Well, it's probably a quality of weasel wording, that statements can have, both, multiple meanings and no real meaning at all. But I still think that they were trying to make some sort of distinction between distinctive evidence and some lower form of evidence.
Actually, if they were going to explain what happened honestly, it might sound something like this, "Yeah, the guy in the replay booth was trying to make up his mind, whether the ball had been touched or not, but then he realised that that clown Nichols had already bounced the ball. So then we thought, maybe if we say nothing, then everybody would just forget about it. But hey, no such luck. And really, I don't know you people are still going on about it? I mean, haven't you all got anything better to do? Fake news!"

[Markwebbos]

I think the AFL have deliberately sidestepped the question. Surely the goal review system should be there to correct wrong decisions if they are wrong. If they can't do that in the time available then that doesn't make the original decision right.

[MattW]

I think the AFL have deliberately sidestepped the question. Surely the goal review system should be there to correct wrong decisions if they are wrong. If they can't do that in the time available then that doesn't make the original decision right.

Yep. That explanation is actually absurd. To set a practice by reference to the length of a tv commercial will produce random and thus unsporting results. And for what? No reason related to what's happening on the field.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Well doesn't Facebook suck again today.

People complaining not only about plan A but also plan B
Calling for blood, sooking complaining.
Goal reviews, umpires etc etc etc

I'm heading to Canberra for 4 days, in the morning and I'll be too busy while I'm there to bother with Facebook.
By the time I'm back hopefully it will be a bit better

Keep a lookout for Roos if you're driving at dusk. I drove to and from Sydney (from Melb) last week. Roos and wallabies everywhere at dusk and I must have seen 300 carcasses.

[stevoswan]

Especially when there two similar incidents in today?s Tigers Freo game which they correctly called touched.

I was in the car listening to the call of that match today and heard one of those reviews and it took a way lot longer than Steven Hocking's "20-30 seconds" for it to happen. I was shouting "Oh, you'll review that one today after about a minute! You weren't that courteous last night!!" It makes me so angry......

[mcs]

That response from the AFL is typical - find a way to say it was actually OK, whether it addressed the issue or not. The real problem is that umpires have, and will now do so even more given the edict to try and save time on reviews, justified not using the goal review process on the basis that a decent review occurs anyway after each goal. But that just isn't the case.

The Ben Brown frees were a disgrace really - just poor umpires getting absolutely sucked in. Only certain players get away with those, and Brown has elevated himself to that level where he has a reputation for being a good mark on the lead and/or overhead, so when he stages in those instances, the umpires take a view that 'he must have been infringed to have gone under the footy like that' - totally ignoring what actual contact was made, if any.

Why is anyone surprised by the AFL's response.... the most arrogant of arrogant organisations these days. Just needs a wanker banker to run the joint and they'd be completely perfectly set up. They will justify anything to meet their required means.

As for Ben Brown, I've already said my views - I think he does seem to exaggerate contact and make a meal of it at times.

[CureTheSane]

Keep a lookout for Roos if you're driving at dusk. I drove to and from Sydney (from Melb) last week. Roos and wallabies everywhere at dusk and I must have seen 300 carcasses.

haha, I hope my wife doesn't see this. She's totally paranoid about Roos.
This time I'm flying up. I have to go to Canberra 4 or 5 times a year so the road is fairly well travelled.

Takes around 6.5 hours to drive, and around 4 hours to fly (from my front door to where I'm going).
just depends how long I'm going for and how much I need to get around easily.

[Meg]

From the AFL website:

?The (video review) system was brought in to eliminate mistakes, so surely time is a non-factor, otherwise let's just back our officials on the field. In recent weeks, AFL footy boss Steve Hocking has asked officials to make decisions within 20-30 seconds or else defer back to the original call, which eliminates any major delays in play. But what if a call needs to be made in the last 30 seconds of a Grand Final? Do we really want a time limit placed on a massive decision that could cost a team a premiership? Let's be clear, the Hartung goal wasn't the reason North won the game, but another minute to get the call right must be worth it. Players, coaches and fans deserve that.? - Adam Curley

[CureTheSane]

When I click on Match Thread #AFL Round 7, Swans vs North, 7:25pm at the SCG #AFLSwansNorth @sydneyswans
I get no thread, just the title.